“But the sensitivity of this colony to shifting sea-ice trends does illustrate, says the team, the impact that future warming in Antarctica could have on emperor penguins in particular.”
“Research suggests the species might lose anywhere between 50% and 70% of its global population by the end of this century, if sea-ice is reduced to the extent that computer models envisage.“
> “But the sensitivity of this colony to shifting sea-ice trends does illustrate, says the team, the impact that future warming in Antarctica could have on emperor penguins in particular.”
Which is not related to this particular incident. Thanks for proving my point again.
You made up the “which is not related to this particular incident” part (which is why you couldn’t quote it). They said they couldn’t point to an “obvious” cause in this case, which you eagerly mischaracterized as meaning “it has nothing to do with global warming.” But that’s not what they said. They said they didn’t deeply study and understand the cause in this case. But we know with great certainty that sea ice is on a rapid decline due to climate change, just half of what it was in the 80s.[1] Thus the article notes studies that project this event will happen with greater frequency due to climate change, ultimately killing off more than half this species by century's end.
It reads like the current fact is that they don't know why the ice didn't regenerate now.
And then they follow up with basically saying this proves that rescinding ice does affect the Penguins, so 'future' (not current, as they haven't detected any changes) could affect them.
“But the sensitivity of this colony to shifting sea-ice trends does illustrate, says the team, the impact that future warming in Antarctica could have on emperor penguins in particular.”
“Research suggests the species might lose anywhere between 50% and 70% of its global population by the end of this century, if sea-ice is reduced to the extent that computer models envisage.“